Best Canadien player in Europe

The truth is that if North Americans had free access to and the desire to play in Europe then they would be represented in numbers proportional to overall player participation, just as Europeans are in the NHL. Yes there would be a variance of a few percent either way, but once again your claim that North Americans aren't good enough is just another dose of your zealous nationalism.

Evidence suggests otherwise.

If non-NHLers had equal access, Euro leagues would NOT be proportional to overall player nor NHL participation numbers.
With so few North Americans in Europe and a supposed outrageous advantage in talent depth based on participation numbers, the AHL (full of NAs) should be exceedingly better than any European league, particularly depth wise. But it’s not….actually far from it.

Honestly, how could this scenario mirror NHL participation/talent breakdown when a large collection of best non-NHL Canadian talent is basically only equal to European club level (as seen during Spenglar Cup tournament)? And we’re not even getting into the previously stated DEL/NLA example.

If anything, this illustrates that using NHL participation numbers as a barometer for measuring overall talent depth is extremely faulty logic.

If non-NHLers had equal access, Euro leagues would NOT be proportional to overall player nor NHL participation numbers.
With so few North Americans in Europe and a supposed outrageous advantage in talent depth based on participation numbers, the AHL (full of NAs) should be exceedingly better than any European league, particularly depth wise. But it’s not….actually far from it.

Honestly, how could this scenario mirror NHL participation/talent breakdown when a large collection of best non-NHL Canadian talent is basically only equal to European club level (as seen during Spenglar Cup tournament)? And we’re not even getting into the previously stated DEL/NLA example.

If anything, this illustrates that using NHL participation numbers as a barometer for measuring overall talent depth is extremely faulty logic.

Side note

the Canadian team at the Spengler in not the best non-NHL canadian talent. The best non-NHL canadian talent is in the AHL. 20 of the 22 guys on the roster play in Europe.

So taking that and the fact that the Canadians have been in the final 12 of the last 14 years with not having the best non-NHL canadian talent. Imagine what would happen if they DID have the best non-NHL canadian talent.

If non-NHLers had equal access, Euro leagues would NOT be proportional to overall player nor NHL participation numbers.
With so few North Americans in Europe and a supposed outrageous advantage in talent depth based on participation numbers, the AHL (full of NAs) should be exceedingly better than any European league, particularly depth wise. But it’s not….actually far from it.

Honestly, how could this scenario mirror NHL participation/talent breakdown when a large collection of best non-NHL Canadian talent is basically only equal to European club level (as seen during Spenglar Cup tournament)? And we’re not even getting into the previously stated DEL/NLA example.

If anything, this illustrates that using NHL participation numbers as a barometer for measuring overall talent depth is extremely faulty logic.

Well some how the overall participation numbers found in the IIHF's Survey of Players are directly proportional to the number of arenas in each country and is directly proportional to the number of players in the world's top league. If you don't think that in a free and open system that would extend to Europe then I suggest you keep on drinking the bigot cool-aid.

Its two different games played on two different rinks in which said players grow up playing a different style.

The difference in the NA and European games is often greatly understated. Look at how long it takes some players to adjust to playing for a new team, let alone playing in a completely new league, with different sized ice, different rules and reffing, etc. The adjustment time works the same both ways, but it obviously gives the Europeans a HUGE advantage at most international tournaments.

the Canadian team at the Spengler in not the best non-NHL canadian talent. The best non-NHL canadian talent is in the AHL. 20 of the 22 guys on the roster play in Europe.

So taking that and the fact that the Canadians have been in the final 12 of the last 14 years with not having the best non-NHL canadian talent. Imagine what would happen if they DID have the best non-NHL canadian talent.

By and large, Spengler Cup team IS made up of a lot of the best non-NHL talent.
Many are low level NHLers who decide to play in Europe for a paycheck. Others are veterans who've 'maxed out' potential wise but are still currently better than top prospects in AHL.

Well some how the overall participation numbers found in the IIHF's Survey of Players are directly proportional to the number of arenas in each country and is directly proportional to the number of players in the world's top league. If you don't think that in a free and open system that would extend to Europe then I suggest you keep on drinking the bigot cool-aid.

No it’s not proportional.

Canada produces NHLers at a high rate per player (438 current NHLers according to NHL.com, per 499,625 participants via IIHF.com).
Per player produced, that’s nearly twice the number of NHLers as Russia; 3x that of Finland; roughly twice that of Czech Republic. Ironically, the only country that produces a higher rate of NHLers per player is Slovakia.

If total NHLers mirrored a country's player participation, these rates would generally be even amongst all countries; however they’re not.
Right now there’s a sizable exodus of European NHL talent due to increased salaries elsewhere and cap limitations…..and this is amongst players who initially choose to play in the NHL. And let’s not forget NHL is a North American league whereby it's generally easier for North Americans to flourish.
Even America's participation numbers are skewed because a good size of it is in underdevloped hockey places (USA has low NHL player/participant ratio).

If IIHF figures were directly proportional across the board (if everybody produced at Canada’s rate because they had equal access and equal want for NHL) the total number of Canadian NHLers would drop from from its current 54% to just below 39%.
Put these numbers in a European league setting where Canadians are more disadvatnaged than NHL and it drops even more....perhaps as low as 30%.

Although it may give us some basic insight, NHL participation is NOT a solid barometer for accurately measuring overall talent depth. On the surface it appears to be, but dig deeper and we find some extremely faulty and/or biased logic.....there are just too many factors that could corrupt results.

By and large, Spengler Cup team IS made up of a lot of the best non-NHL talent.
Many are low level NHLers who decide to play in Europe for a paycheck. Others are veterans who've 'maxed out' potential wise but are still currently better than top prospects in AHL.

Canada produces NHLers at a high rate per player (438 current NHLers according to NHL.com, per 499,625 participants via IIHF.com).
Per player produced, that’s nearly twice the number of NHLers as Russia; 3x that of Finland; roughly twice that of Czech Republic. Ironically, the only country that produces a higher rate of NHLers per player is Slovakia.

If total NHLers mirrored a country's player participation, these rates would generally be even amongst all countries; however they’re not.
Right now there’s a sizable exodus of European NHL talent due to increased salaries elsewhere and cap limitations…..and this is amongst players who initially choose to play in the NHL. And let’s not forget NHL is a North American league whereby it's generally easier for North Americans to flourish.
Even America's participation numbers are skewed because a good size of it is in underdevloped hockey places (USA has low NHL player/participant ratio).

If IIHF figures were directly proportional across the board (if everybody produced at Canada’s rate because they had equal access and equal want for NHL) the total number of Canadian NHLers would drop from from its current 54% to just below 39%.
Put these numbers in a European league setting where Canadians are more disadvatnaged than NHL and it drops even more....perhaps as low as 30%.

Although it may give us some basic insight, NHL participation is NOT a solid barometer for accurately measuring overall talent depth. On the surface it appears to be, but dig deeper and we find some extremely faulty and/or biased logic.....there are just too many factors that could corrupt results.

The main reason for this anomoly is that todays NHL numbers are relative to the overall participation numbers of ~20 years ago. I expect that participation in the US has increased considerably since then and in Czechoslovakia (particularily Slovakia) it likely has decreased. Yes the NA players will have a slight advantage in the NHL and viceversa, but given time to adjust that advantage decreases. At the peak Europeans represented around 31% of NHLers, which was very close to their overall participation rate. This shows that it is possible for players to adjust and come close to representing their overall participation numbers in a foreign pro league.

The main reason for this anomoly is that todays NHL numbers are relative to the overall participation numbers of ~20 years ago. I expect that participation in the US has increased considerably since then and in Czechoslovakia (particularily Slovakia) it likely has decreased. Yes the NA players will have a slight advantage in the NHL and viceversa, but given time to adjust that advantage decreases. At the peak Europeans represented around 31% of NHLers, which was very close to their overall participation rate. This shows that it is possible for players to adjust and come close to representing their overall participation numbers in a foreign pro league.

It’s not an anomaly, it’s another reason why NHL participation numbers aren't reliable; unless, that is, you can prove a correlation between current NHLers and the IIHF participation rates of 15-20 years ago…numbers you probably don’t even have.

You can’t use a study and claim #s as legitimate for one country and outdated for another and come to a conclusion based on what you 'expect'.
Basically, you’re picking and choosing evidence to fit your hypothesis.
And it’s not just the USA and Czechs, this anomaly still doesn’t explain Canada’s higher average compared to Russia and Finland.

Truthfully, I'd probably take the upper half of each team to make the true All-Star team.
Basically the same as what I said earlier that a lot of the best non-NHL talent is on Spenglar Cup team.

It doesnt really matter what you would take, 3/4 of the All-star team are just more talented. Maybe you could slide 1/4, realistically less the that, of the Spen team and have the best non-NHL canadian talent but this All-star team is more talented across the board the the Spen team which means the Spen is not made up of the best non-NHL Canadian talent. It is made up of the best Canadian talent in Europe. I wouldnt even go that far tbh.

It doesnt really matter what you would take, 3/4 of the All-star team are just more talented. Maybe you could slide 1/4, realistically less the that, of the Spen team and have the best non-NHL canadian talent but this All-star team is more talented across the board the the Spen team which means the Spen is not made up of the best non-NHL Canadian talent. It is made up of the best Canadian talent in Europe. I wouldnt even go that far tbh.

Big difference

At this point, talent is nothing more than potential for many of those AHL all-stars; it does not mean they’re all better players at this moment.
Go through the rosters. More Spenglar players have been NHL regulars in recent years.

BTW, I never said Spenglar Cup team has all the best non-NHL Canadian talent. I said it had a lot of the best non-NHL talent....especially in terms of proving it in a higher than AHL setting. And that’s 100% correct.

At this point, talent is nothing more than potential for many of those AHL all-stars; it does not mean they’re all better players at this moment.
Go through the rosters. More Spenglar players have been NHL regulars in recent years.

BTW, I never said Spenglar Cup team has all the best non-NHL Canadian talent. I said it had a lot of the best non-NHL talent....especially in terms of proving it in a higher than AHL setting. And that’s 100% correct.

I thought we were talking about the players being the best non-NHL canadian talent at the time they play on the Spen. Not at some point in the past of their careers.

AHL Canadian All-star team 2009 is filled with with better non-nhl canadian talent across the board then the 2008 Spen team. That is my whole point.....

"I don't see how they'd be any worse than an AHL all-star team."

1. Thats how the Spen team would be worse then the AHL Canadian all-stars,

"when a large collection of best non-NHL Canadian talent is basically only equal to European club level (as seen during Spenglar Cup tournament"

2. The best non-NHL canadian talent does not play for the Canadian Spen team. The best non-nhl canadian talent is in the AHL and dont compete at the Spen. Once again, Canada has been in the finals 12 of the last 14 years with the non-best, non-NHL canadian talent. Imagine how ridiculously dominant they would have been with the best non-NHL canadian talent.

It’s not an anomaly, it’s another reason why NHL participation numbers aren't reliable; unless, that is, you can prove a correlation between current NHLers and the IIHF participation rates of 15-20 years ago…numbers you probably don’t even have.

You can’t use a study and claim #s as legitimate for one country and outdated for another and come to a conclusion based on what you 'expect'.
Basically, you’re picking and choosing evidence to fit your hypothesis.
And it’s not just the USA and Czechs, this anomaly still doesn’t explain Canada’s higher average compared to Russia and Finland.

In terms of measuring overall national depth, in my opinion the IIHF survey of players is probably the best sample area, followed by NHL statistics, probably followed by WJC results, followed by the results of the men's tournaments that had a high participation rate by the top players from each country, and so on. The reason I say the WJC is because it is played relatively frequently and generally the participation rate is high for the top players of that age group.

There is no such thing as the perfect statistical source, there will be anomalies in every one of them, but the key is to find the broadest source of data available. The essence of my argument is that on average people are inherently equal, to which I hope you'd agree.

If you feel you have a better source of data, then please share it with us.

2. The best non-NHL canadian talent does not play for the Canadian Spen team. The best non-nhl canadian talent is in the AHL and dont compete at the Spen. Once again, Canada has been in the finals 12 of the last 14 years with the non-best, non-NHL canadian talent. Imagine how ridiculously dominant they would have been with the best non-NHL canadian talent.

You are yet to provide any evidence that the AHL All stars are any better than the Spengler Cup team. After all many players in the Spengler Cup teams are former AHL all stars.

Why would you assume current all stars are any better than all stars from 4 years ago? It's only the AHL, you're not any worse simply because you leave the league.

Its not an assumption, it is the way it is. OBVIOUSLY an Allstar NOW is better then and All-star from 4 years ago. If the All-star from 4 years ago was still that good he would be an All-star NOW.
What part doesnt make sense to you?
You are worse when your talent is worse. If you dont know who these players are who have been listed, take a few minutes and look it up.

Its not an assumption, it is the way it is. OBVIOUSLY an Allstar NOW is better then and All-star from 4 years ago. If the All-star from 4 years ago was still that good he would be an All-star NOW.
What part doesnt make sense to you?
You are worse when your talent is worse. If you dont know who these players are who have been listed, take a few minutes and look it up.

pretty simple

AHL All-stars come to Europe because theres more money than in AHL, simple? Many if not most of the current AHL all-stars will be in Europe four years from now.

AHL All-stars come to Europe because theres more money than in AHL, simple? Many if not most of the current AHL all-stars will be in Europe four years from now.

The North American AHLers generally won't go to Europe unless they are sure they will never make it to the NHL. That may start to change as the leagues in Europe improve, but for now I don't think your statement is true.

in hockey skill is relative to rink size so it's almost impossible to guess which "league" has more skilled players because they are basically playing 2 different sports.

I believe that an NLA-Team-Canada would defeat an AHL-Team-Canada simply because of their experience advantage because the most talented AHLers are significantly younger.
Experienced AHLers are not good enough for both the NHL and Europe that is why they are AHLers.

Apart from what I believe who would win one can compare the two hypothetical teams based on their stats that they had when playing in juniors. Might be interesting.

the kariya brothers (martin and steve) have led pretty much every league they've played in (SEL, finnish, swiss,) Golden helmets, mvps, league scoring, team scoring... no matter what team they've played in/on they've been amongst the team or overall leaders in scoring